LinuxQuestions.org
Download your favorite Linux distribution at LQ ISO.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - News
User Name
Password
Linux - News This forum is for original Linux News. If you'd like to write content for LQ, feel free to contact us.
All threads in the forum need to be approved before they will appear.

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 03-20-2005, 07:18 PM   #16
marxist1984
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Sep 2004
Distribution: Gentoo, Freebsd, Slackware, Debian
Posts: 7

Rep: Reputation: 0

Quote:
If he acts rationale (or selfish), he'll do it for the GPL variant, assuming that another developer somewhere on the world misses the second functionality and implements it. This is what makes GPL development rationale: Sharing the costs (ie. work) for getting a certain utility.
He is not being selfish if he's willing to protect the interest of the open software community. When the developer adds the first functionality, it is better that the community have the code and stay in the community of free software instead of getting in the hands of microsoft. How is developer 1 selfish when he is looking out for the community by using the GPL variant?

You call him selfish, I call him rationalistic and progressive in respect of the community as well as himself. I would say he or she is altruistic for ensuring the welfare of the community. In this case rationale and selfishness are not the same. rationality in this case and greed are very far apart. Now, the BSD license does not provide such security for the community in terms of exclusive functionality because a closed source rival might implement the functionality and progress his product in to near perfection at lower cost of effort. If you're looking at it from the closed source side, than this developer might seem "selfish" to you because it not fair that you can't use his code when others can't use yours(so whos is really selfish here). The community has mutually benifited from cooperative interexchange of information from its members. To allow that work to have a chance to fall into the hands of those who are not willing to contribute back to the community is just foolish and hurts the community. The codes produce by the open software community should stay exclusive to the community unless other persons are willing to contribute their improvements or enhancements back to the cooperative. If you don't do that, you kill off the community slowly or slow its progress and give your rivals an edge which you are not able to perform and that edge is the assimilation of otherwise exclusive code. The products of the open source community should not be an open basket of code for far more capable corporations to utilize or improve to their need without contributing their changes back to the collective.

Last edited by marxist1984; 03-20-2005 at 07:21 PM.
 
Old 03-21-2005, 03:06 AM   #17
alred
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2005
Location: singapore
Distribution: puppy and Ubuntu and ... erh ... redhat(sort of) :( ... + the venerable bsd and solaris ^_^
Posts: 658
Blog Entries: 8

Rep: Reputation: 31
Quote:
The products of the open source community should not be an open basket of code for far more capable corporations to utilize or improve to their need without contributing their changes back to the collective.
the Open Source is just a basket of fools who simply got nothing to lose as long as they got nothing to gain for the time being.This basket of fools surely makes an instant marketing strategy(a powerful one) for coperative rivalries.
They can't show us what is communities,cooperatives or collectives in a concrete manners,let alone the most fundalmental of all,ownership of properties( computer codes?! ).And yet , they keep on talking about "sharing of ....","protect ourselves against ....","work as a community".This is what irratates people from the other side or varients(?).
This only aggravates the prevalent pessismism of "we are at where we are now,nothing's going to change anyway"
 
Old 03-21-2005, 06:49 AM   #18
clausi
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 48

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally posted by marxist1984
How is developer 1 selfish when he is looking out for the community by using the GPL variant?
The motivation "to look out for the community" is part of his preferences. Preferences are hard to measure, and open to change anytime. Unfortunatly, you can explain every human behaviour by his preferences: "Why did you do X instead of Y?" "Well, I wanted to!"

Thus, explaining actions by preferences delivers no predictions that can be tested.

Now think the econmomists way: "Why did you GPL your editor instead of making it proprietary and earn a lot of money?" The answer could be: "There are strong network effects in the market, and /or established market leaders. Making it proprietary is expensive: You need to start a company, deal with taxes, marketing, the law, shareholders, etc. Making it GPL and hope that somebody helps me implementing it, was the less expensive solution to get what I wanted."

See! Not explanation by preference but objective circumstances of the markets. In fact, you'll theoretically be able to ask participants in a interview if they would react to those market characteristics the same way, and find out if your explanation survives.

Quote:
Originally posted by marxist1984
You call him selfish, I call him rationalistic and progressive in respect of the community as well as himself. I would say he or she is altruistic for ensuring the welfare of the community.
Often, you can reduce visible altruistic behaviour to selfishness. The altruistically behaving priest may be really motivated by the wish to secure his entry into heaven - a selfish motivation. The other way around is complicated: Selfish behaviour is often hard to reduce to altruistic motivations. Thus, it's better to start by assuming everybody's motivation is selfish.

Please note the words 'selfish' or 'rationale' have no bad meaning here. It's not a judgement.

And conincidently, this assumed selfish motivation leads to a higher welfare of the community.
 
Old 03-21-2005, 05:53 PM   #19
marxist1984
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Sep 2004
Distribution: Gentoo, Freebsd, Slackware, Debian
Posts: 7

Rep: Reputation: 0
Quote:
Now think the econmomists way: "Why did you GPL your editor instead of making it proprietary and earn a lot of money?" The answer could be: "There are strong network effects in the market, and /or established market leaders. Making it proprietary is expensive: You need to start a company, deal with taxes, marketing, the law, shareholders, etc. Making it GPL and hope that somebody helps me implementing it, was the less expensive solution to get what I wanted."
Ok yes, there are self interest involved in choosing a license for software, but to know how often this goes on, noone knows for sure. So if choosing the GPL saves the programmer unnecessary burdons, than so be it. The community still benefits from the open source code and is free to modify such code to their wishes. If the programmer benefits from being selfish and indirectly helps the community then that is fine. You're looking at it from a capitalist world instead of a collective point of view. you have to understand that the free software community can be thought of as an example of an information gift economy. Programmers make their source code available to users and the developer community, and anyone can copy and modify/improve the code. Individual programmers gain prestige and respect, and the community as a whole benefits from better software.

Yes my friend there is greed but as long as that greed benefits the community there is no problem. Yes programmers have to eat so they have to make money off their software but thats only because of the status quo of society. If the programmer has problems(financial issues) in getting their software a proprietary license then who's fault is that? the programmers' or the society?

Now I'm trying to understand what you're argument is against, what do you think is right or what is wrong, so please let them be shown clearly. Because it looks like you're all for proprietary software or the chance of open software becoming proprietary for your personal greed which alienates the community. Unlike developer 1 which is also "selfish" yet at the same time the whole benefits as well. whereas you are the only one that benefits. Not logical from a collective point of view but very much for a capitalist point of view. Reciprocity is seen as a broad community matter rather than one of explicit quid pro quo.

The point is that there are many circumstances for reasons why people prefer to things in different ways. You can make up all the scenarios you want, there are always different reasons for why people choose different licenses. Some people are just hobbyist who like to program and share, some are looking out for their interest, some do it in spite of the proprietary community. Those who start off their program with the welfare of the community in mind will choose the gpl over anything else. they don't want our software to become part of the corporate industry which has restricted our rights to tinker with their software, So why should we allow them to use or modify our code, if they are not going to contribute anything back. Why should we pave the road and let their cars on it when they don't let us on their roads? its not logical. We can not be altruistic with absolutely everyone, especially with those that don't play our game.

Last edited by marxist1984; 03-21-2005 at 06:07 PM.
 
Old 03-21-2005, 07:02 PM   #20
clausi
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 48

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally posted by marxist1984
You're looking at it from a capitalist world instead of a collective point of view. you have to understand that the free software community can be thought of as an example of an information gift economy.
No, I'm looking at it from an economist's point of view, not a capitalist's point of view. The first is a science, the second a certain political movement. And gift economies have certain disadvantages when used in a modern world; althought they work fine in rather small communties.

Quote:
Originally posted by marxist1984
Now I'm trying to understand what you're argument is against, what do you think is right or what is wrong, so please let them be shown clearly. Because it looks like you're all for proprietary software or the chance of open software becoming proprietary for your personal greed which alienates the community.
An answer about 'right' or 'wrong' is a judgement -- in fact, a morale judgement. I tried to keep them out of the discussion about licenses.

However, I've read no ethnic arguments that proprietary software is, by definition, wrong. I've just seen claims that this is the case. For more than 2000 years, philosophers have tried to nail down the rationale reason for morale judgements, and they found a single answer -- althought they expressed it in many different words. But there seems to be no link between the Free Software movement and this reason. At least, I didn't find it yet.

I admit, I haven't searched very much yet.
 
Old 03-22-2005, 02:45 PM   #21
marxist1984
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Sep 2004
Distribution: Gentoo, Freebsd, Slackware, Debian
Posts: 7

Rep: Reputation: 0
Quote:
No, I'm looking at it from an economist's point of view, not a capitalist's point of view. The first is a science, the second a certain political movement. And gift economies have certain disadvantages when used in a modern world; althought they work fine in rather small communties.
Capitalism is an economic system. Collectivism is also an economic system. So, to say that capitalism and economics are different things is wrong because they are related. To say that economics is a monolithic science is wrong. There are many types of economies. You're looking at matter at hand from a Capitalist economic view, which is rational beacuse you most likely live in society that is based on it. The difference between the two is that one benefits solelythe individual (capitalist)and the other benefits the whole including the individual(collectivism).

Capitalism: An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Collectivism: The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively.

The point is that capitalism is an economic system. What you have to realize that we humans are a clan species, It has been like this for a very long time. We are social animals. What you are trying to bring in is the arguement of human nature, that humans are selfish so they make decisions for their benefit and not one elses. When in fact human nature changes over time and is defined by the ruling class (of whatever it maybe)to proctect their survival and power. Tell me what human nature was in feudal systems? or in systems of slavery? wasn't it "god made that slave to pick your cotton? or "it's god will for the king too rule this land". and in capitalism? "it's individual greed that's human nature, We all have greed, it is the foundation" So you see it makes it ok for there to be greed in people because its in their nature when in fact that nature is artificially implemented. So, It's ok for you to enslave people, its ok for you to be greedy because in the end that benefits the ruling class which is and has always been a minority. Yes humans sometimes do greedy things but thats because of the societies policy. The open source initiative is an explicit phenomenon. Software code in the beginning was openly shared but corporate interest in search for a new market changed that. Now it's has risen again and they can't stop it. They try with their patents and their bought out judges and rivals but they will fail. Yes, there are problems with collectivism in that it is decentralized, but now that struggle of developing software falls on the collective as a whole, the indivual feels more secure and free and in turn develops peices and others do the same. Work is spread out and done in portions, in a mutual and cooperative manner. In the end you have a product that would take a single professional a significant amount of time to complete, done by a mass of cooperative individuals in the same or less with semi/quasi-professional volunteers. The fact that at the end, the community as whole benefits while using significantly less time and energy than the individual is more efficient. So, yes there are developers that choose based on their preferences, but it helps them along with community. The clan is always strong and prosperous when their is a sense of security within the mass of individuals. Some do it for a chance of quid pro quo others do it for various reasons, including altruistic ones.

Quote:
However, I've read no ethnic arguments that proprietary software is, by definition, wrong. I've just seen claims that this is the case. For more than 2000 years, philosophers have tried to nail down the rationale reason for morale judgements, and they found a single answer -- althought they expressed it in many different words. But there seems to be no link between the Free Software movement and this reason. At least, I didn't find it yet.
you are right, there is no ethnic argument that proprietary software is by definition wrong from a capitalist point of view. Proprietary software is permissible because of the profit driven systems we live in today but so is killing in war, does that make it ok? It wouldn't be for me to judge. The fact that proprietary systems are trying to patent everything from pull down menus to radio buttons is confining and restrictive to our freedoms. So I would say that is not only wrong but inefficient.

Last edited by marxist1984; 03-22-2005 at 03:19 PM.
 
Old 03-22-2005, 03:29 PM   #22
alred
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2005
Location: singapore
Distribution: puppy and Ubuntu and ... erh ... redhat(sort of) :( ... + the venerable bsd and solaris ^_^
Posts: 658
Blog Entries: 8

Rep: Reputation: 31
marxist1984,

it seems that you are trying to squeeze out a valid or rather a look-alike marxist interpretation out off something or organisation that doesn't play your game , a game they can't afford to play currently.
Yet you managed to persuade(to be permissive) yourself into their game and that is an alienation.The only difference is that the alienation shared by everyone in a capitalist society is of a very different kind from yours.
If in someway you did managed to resolve (to be permissive?) that alienation of yours then what I can foresee is a reformed capitalism with reformed marxists together with their much safer sense of community and the collective(politically and economically from a capitalistic point of view),and that is reactionary in marxist interpretation.

Last edited by alred; 03-22-2005 at 09:12 PM.
 
Old 03-22-2005, 08:00 PM   #23
clausi
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 48

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally posted by marxist1984
So, to say that capitalism and economics are different things is wrong because they are related.
Pardon? Is it wrong to say that birds and those who study birds are two different things because they are related?

I'm sorry to say that but you seem to be willing to make a political discussion. Well, I don't. Thus, this was my last post about the topic.

Live long and prosper.

P.S.: If you have a chance to get your hands on Matt Ridley's "The Origins of Virtue", you should really read it just for fun.

Last edited by clausi; 03-22-2005 at 08:10 PM.
 
Old 03-23-2005, 01:28 PM   #24
marxist1984
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Sep 2004
Distribution: Gentoo, Freebsd, Slackware, Debian
Posts: 7

Rep: Reputation: 0
Quote:
Pardon? Is it wrong to say that birds and those who study birds are two different things because they are related?
Well, It depends if those who study birds are also birds themselves. Capitalism is a branch of economics. A man is not a branch of the avian race. That was a distinct analogy. Although you claim to have studied or study economics you did not overtly manifest that branch which you studied or used in your arguments against mine. So I, albeit not fully ignorant, assume that you used the capitalist type to argue against the statements in my postings. But I thank you for not being impolite and also for respecting my views by not taking cheap shots. I will buy the book it seems interesting. This is also my last post on this matter.

cheers

Last edited by marxist1984; 03-23-2005 at 01:34 PM.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Future of Linux, Future of BSD ? tarballed Linux - General 28 01-01-2012 05:04 PM
Tech VIPs say future belongs to open source rvijay Linux - News 1 07-30-2005 04:02 PM
Open Source Brethren a penny for your thoughts! Mockbird Linux - Networking 1 12-04-2003 02:24 PM
The future of Open-Source and GNU... Brother Michael General 9 11-22-2003 12:13 PM
Open source, trojans, other thoughts Pres Linux - Security 4 11-03-2002 02:03 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - News

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:17 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration